The Instigator
ADHDavid
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
asi14
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The title of this debate has the word "of" in it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ADHDavid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2015 Category: Funny
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 79107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

ADHDavid

Pro

The title of this debate is proof.
asi14

Con

The order is: 2 Offcase, 1 Oncase.

First, the Debate.org Disadvantage
Uniqueness: There are a resonable amount of debates that aren't troll debates, and in which serious people debate. [1] This is good for education since people have to really think about real world issues in answering their opponent's topics. But this good education happens ONLY IF REASONABLE DEBATES ARE MADE.

Link: Debates which have no real meaning get added into the DDO challenge room, such as this very debate, and qualify as "troll" debatess. The definition of "troll" as defined by the Oxford Dictionary is to "Make a deliberately offensive or provocativeonline post with the aim of upsetting someone oreliciting an angry response from them:" [2]

Internal Link: These useless debates make people unhappy with the website because it's full of trolls, thus get off the site.
Impact: This kills the good education that was talked about in the Uniqueness. Education outweighs, as it is the most immediate result of debate.

Next, Counterplan
CP Text: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its passage and enforcement of its gun control legislature. The net benefit is the Debate.org DA. Gun control is a controversial topic, thus forces people to research the topic in order to make better arguments, thus get more votes in rounds. That's good for education since people are learning more about gun control.

Next, Case
Yes, it is clear that there is "of" in the title. But it's one thing to have it, then to use it. The pro's case advocates for mere decorative words, rather than actually using it. This kills education since we're not using the words for what they really mean. Reject this "case", embrace the CP. Vote Con.

Sources:
  1. http://www.debate.org...
  2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ADHDavid

Pro

Although Con is arguing a point, he is not arguing the point that I have requested someone argue against me. In fact, I do not think Con even realizes what the debates topic is. I will use this URL as a link for proof, as my point is proven in the title of the debate.

"The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its passage and enforcement of its gun control legislature. The net benefit is the Debate.org DA. Gun control is a controversial topic, thus forces people to research the topic in order to make better arguments, thus get more votes in rounds. That's good for education since people are learning more about gun control."

This has nothing to do with this debate, so it is null in the given context.

"Internal Link: These useless debates make people unhappy with the website because it's full of trolls, thus get off the site.
Impact: This kills the good education that was talked about in the Uniqueness. Education outweighs, as it is the most immediate result of debate."

?

This has nothing to do with the Debate, and Con has failed to provide resources and proof that he is indeed right in the word "of" Is not in the title. He has liked some

"Yes, it is clear that there is "of" in the title. But it's one thing to have it, then to use it. The pro's case advocates for mere decorative words, rather than actually using it. This kills education since we're not using the words for what they really mean. Reject this "case", embrace the CP. Vote Con."

Con refutes his own point right here, and failed to even read the title before posting his argument.
"But it's one thing to have it, then to use it. The pro's case advocates for mere decorative words, rather than actually using it."
Actually, I do use the word "of" in the title, twice, actually! I will prove it!

"The title of this debate has the word "of" in it." : In this sentence, which happens to be the title, I use the the word "of" in the genitive case, making the ownership of the title go to the debate itself. There is actually two cases of the word "of" in the title, and it is impossible to refute.

http://www.debate.org...

The only evidence I need, beside the definition of the word "of" to prove that I used it properly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Instead of saying "Vote Pro!" I'm going to say vote for whoever provided the most sufficient proof of their point, and remember that there are two more chances for Con to change his argument.
asi14

Con

If I came accross as regarding the pro as a troll, my apologies. I never encountered this kind of a debate before.

Unfortunately, the pro has undisputable points. His title DOES have "of" in it, education be damned. Thus, I regretfully submit a FORFEITURE to this debate.

http://www.simplywoman.com...;

Nevertheless, there is some education coming from this debate for you voters who soon will condemn me on "ff": never underestimate a debater by his proposed topic.
Debate Round No. 2
ADHDavid

Pro

Thank you for Con arguing in this debate, and for being cordial and friendly!
asi14

Con

good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ADHDavid 2 years ago
ADHDavid
One refusal Con could make would be the the word "of" is not in "it".
This is not true as I did not put brackets around the word "it".
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
I'm gonna take some time to think about my next move, since the construct of this debate is basically suicide for the con.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
Why did I even choose this debate in the first place.
Posted by ADHDavid 2 years ago
ADHDavid
I did this mainly for fun, as that is the reason I posted this in "Funny"

Con seems to think he can still win by claiming I am a troll, when I am simply not. This is a real debate topic, that is almost impossible to refute. I'm interested in seeing his counter-counter claim though!
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
either way this is a useless debate. I just felt obligated to take it off the challenge list. I do wish this debate had a real topic.
Posted by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
1) lol, first of all you have no ground to run a CP. There is no Plan to BE counter-planned.

2) second is permutation, do both. There is nothing stopping us from doing this nonexistant plan as well as the counter plan

3) Theory/Framework K for running a counterplan. + damages fairness

4) no link to being a troll. The post doesn't seem to make anyone mad or offended. If this debate was bad con shouldn't have accepted.

5) Con concedes that he loses by acknowledging the word 'of' is used in the title/resolution meaning he loses automatically.

PS there is no reason to tell how many offcase or on case arguments there are because we are in an online debate and the judges don't need to organize their flows.
Posted by asi14 2 years ago
asi14
mhm
Posted by hutt4life 2 years ago
hutt4life
Spot the policy debater
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
ADHDavidasi14Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.